In the realm of college football, change appears to be the only constant. Recently, news surfaced that the Big Ten and SEC are discussing a partnership potentially leading to an expanded College Football Playoffs, more automatic bids for the Power Four conferences, and a formal scheduling series. This development, while significant, was not perceived as a monumental shift.
Many have speculated on the timeline of a collaboration between these two powerhouse conferences, seen more as a matter of “when” rather than “if.” Much of the conversation has revolved around their ambition for additional automatic playoff bids — how audacious! — but sports columnist Jon Wilner has begun to explore what implications this partnership might have for the sport as a whole. In a recent column, he noted that the most likely outcome could be a collaboration between the Big 12 and ACC.
Wilner highlights that the SEC’s shift to a nine-game conference schedule, coupled with a pre-arranged inter-conference series with the Big Ten, might jeopardize any existing matchups that teams from either conference have scheduled with the Big 12 and ACC. With just two slots available on their 12-game schedules, Big Ten and SEC teams might prioritize their conference games over playing against Big 12 and ACC opponents, risking their playoff qualifications. Consequently, purchasing out of already scheduled games against Big 12 and ACC teams could become a common practice, and while those schools would benefit financially, it would leave them scrambling to fill gaps in their own schedules.
To counter this, Wilner proposes that the Big 12 and ACC should establish their own partnership, featuring annual cross-conference games. Although they may not possess the same level of clout as the Big Ten and SEC, such games would generate national interest and support their financial viability. He suggests, “Home-and-home series don’t cost anything. Add the cancellation penalties from SEC and Big Ten schools, and the unfortunate situation could at least become revenue-positive,” adding that “buying one-off home games against Group of Five and FCS programs can be costly — with prices exceeding $1 million per game in some cases. If Big 12 and ACC schools appear desperate, costs could increase even more.”
Of course, this plan would need fine-tuning, especially regarding its implications for the conferences’ playoff entries, as the Big Ten and SEC are projected to receive four automatic bids each, while the ACC and Big 12 would secure two bids each under the proposed 14-team playoff structure. Additionally, concerns remain about the impact on historic rivalries, such as Florida vs. Florida State and Kentucky vs. Louisville.
Despite the negativity surrounding the ongoing transformations in college football, the prospect of regular-season games pitting Big Ten against SEC, and Big 12 against ACC teams, is undeniably compelling. It is important to highlight that while discussions continue, nothing has been conclusively settled regarding the Big Ten and SEC’s partnership — yet it’s becoming increasingly apparent where this trajectory is leading.
